The John Horgan Christy Clark beatdown starts about the 88 minute mark of the video(linked above)

Christy Clark ..almost everytime during this debate, when Clark is embarrassed by Horgan`s commentary and or questions Clark starts her retort back to him with teenage giggling and bullshit about the 1990s...

So funny, Christy Clark and these BC Liberals have nothing new, every woe today is the fault of the NDP in the 90`s according to Clark...

BC Liberals have been in power with a majority for 14 years...

The video is funny and sad at the same time...It`s funny how Christy Clark can`t tell the truth....John Horgan quoted real facts, real numbers on job creation and debt, Christy Clark never stopped lying, the silly goose she is..(cluck cluck)

What`s sad...A leader of a province can stand in the legislature, the people`s house and lie her face off, refuse to answer questions while she giggles and tee-hees on everything, ...Especially the denial by Christy Clark and her party over the fact that they added $135 billion in debt to the province of British Columbia since 2001...$10 billion in debt added to British Columbia each and every year under a BC Liberal Government...

Monday, May 25, 2015

I wrote an article several years ago about why all the Australian LNG projects went over budget by huge margins..

Chevron(Gorgon Plant) ..And others operated in a wink wink nod nod arena, inside contractors and elaborate kick-back schemes were rampant, contractors would double and triple bill and more for work done on LNG plants and kickback money to the company

So companies like Chevron made their operations as expensive as possible knowing the Australian taxpayer would ultimately pay the bill, these contractor kickback schemes...these contractors funneled monies back to the mother corporation..

So....The Australian taxpayer would pay for the LNG plant builds and..And the energy companies would also have in their possession the kickback money from their inside contractors..

British Columbia under Christy Clark and Rich Coleman are attempting to set up the same scenario with Petronas...Hidden tax deals, guaranteed to Petronas, no increases in taxation, royalties or green environmental fees regardless of company profit levels..

Even future BC Government`s hands would be tied, if a future BC Government raised corporate taxes, royalty rates or levied higher carbon taxes, if the British Columbia Government did such a thing Petronas under Christy Clark`s legislation could sue BC`s ass off, take you the taxpayer to court..

Under the agreement, the B.C. government agrees to compensate
Petronas, should future governments move the goalposts on things like
LNG taxes and credits. For example, if the B.C. government were to
increase its LNG tax rate, or introduce some new income or capital tax,
Petronas would have the right to be compensated.It would also be compensated if the province increases an
LNG-specific carbon tax. Petronas would also be elgible for compensation
if the province decreases the natural gas tax credit.The agreement also ensures that, should more beneficial agreements be
signed in the future with other proponents, companies like Petronas
will be able to qualify for the more beneficial agreement.

Christy Clark and the BC Liberals secret deal with Petronas is so insidious for the British Columbia taxpayer ....In that secret deal with Petronas, if British Columbia ever signs another LNG deal with another energy company, if any part of the deal with any other LNG company is detrimental to Petronas they must be compensated...

The deal with Petronas is a two way street, both directions benefit only Petronas...BC Liberals through legislation are tying future Government`s hands, legislating permanent tax and royalty rates and .

And if any other company is offered a better deal(if that is possible), or if the province lowers the rebate on deep-well credits, again, Petronas by BC Liberal legislated law MUST BE COMPENSATED...

Even if another LNG company figures out a way to be more profitable than Petronas, again, the BC taxpayer must PAY PETRONAS...

A rather bold headline atop this post....Read the below information and you will see the extent these LNG companies will go to to screw the people and avoid paying anything to the public...

It will also shine a light onto Christy Clark and Rich Coleman`s British Columbia generational sellout.

While doing more research into the scams and tax avoidance schemes being orchestrated by LNG energy companies I ran across a doozy..

The Australian Government is taking Chevron to for tax avoidance and for running an elaborate tax credit scheme designed to milk the Australian taxpayers dry...

____________

Chevron accused of scam against Australian taxpayers

Oil giant and Gorgon project developer Chevron faces accusations of
running an aggressive tax avoidance scheme which derives profits from
the Australian Tax Office.SMH reported
the findings of a report commissioned by unions in the United States,
which shows the company created artificial interest payments against
which it could exploit tax relief benefits.
The report described the Chevron scheme as “a sham” which “actually
profited from the act of borrowing money at the expense of the
Australian taxpayers”.

“It goes beyond any commercial objective of providing debt finance
leverage to the point where the value of its tax benefits from interest
deductions exceeds the actual before-tax cost of the loan", the report
said.

SMH said the report was yet been made public.

With the ATO(Australia`s version of the CRA) currently pursuing Chevron in the Federal Court for $322
million including penalties, it is alleged the company designed a
corporate structure in order to avoid $258 million in taxes from 2004 to
2008.

The scheme involved setting up a US subsidiary of Chevron Australia
Holdings Pty Ltd (CAHPL) called Chevron Funding Corporation (CFC), which
was established in the US tax-haven state of Delaware.

CFC borrowed US$2.45 billion in several tranches at an initial interest
rate of 1.2 per cent and then loaned it to an Australian entity at 9
per cent interest, which it is alleged resulted in $862 million in tax
free dividends over five years.

The union report states the interest on those loans “ranged from 8.8
per cent to 10.5 per cent", and that Chevron claimed tax deductions on
those interest repayments to the rate of 30 per cent, exempt from
withholding tax.

It has also been suggested that the ATO’s court case, in focusing on
the margins above base interest rate as being not at arm’s length, has
failed to fully tackle the broader issue of tax avoidance intended to
make profits at the expense of the taxpayer.

A source said Chevron has recently opted to avoid making media statements

The LNG operators had low opinions
of Australia's services sector's ability to support them as the
industry became the world's largest in LNG, according to research from
consultants Accenture.

Large resources services group
WorleyParson's chief executive Andrew Wood defended the industry, saying
there should not be any concerns about its expertise or ability to
provide labour, considering Australia had been exporting LNG for 25
years.

The massive numbers involved in building the projects were
greatly reduced when they were operating - the Australian LNG plants
already in production employ only 3,000 to 3,500 people.

Christy Clark and Rich Coleman are aware of the tax scams employed by LNG companies that hurt taxpayers, they don`t care, they are complicit in setting up provincial legislation that opens up the door for the same scams..

Site C Dam push by the BC Liberals is proof positive that the BC Liberals are complicit in GRAFT.

These BC Liberals only care about getting shovels in the ground before the 2017 election..

LNG is no longer about making British Columbia money...LNG is a means to remain in power, to continue to sell present and future generations down the river..

I`m waiting for John Horgan and the BC NDP to start screaming from the rafters, scream HELL NO...We the NDP will filibuster any proposed draconian legislation, we the NDP will hold press conferences, we, the BC NDP refuse to be complicit and robbing the British Columbia people..

We the BC NDP refuse to be complicit in selling out the taxpayer and risking our wild salmon and environment..

Sunday, May 24, 2015

To begin, a fascist government is one which becomes the gangster corporations it serves, creates fake ‘oversight’ bodies to serve those corporations, takes over police in order to further criminal designs, makes enemies of and harasses all forces working for democracy and justice in the country, sews fear wherever possible, and runs a full-scale propaganda campaign claiming to champion ordinary people.

Welcome to the Conservative government of Canada.

We Canadians – in the light of what is written above – are thick in the head. We absolutely refuse to see the width and depth of the lying by the Conservative government, the extent of its dirty-dealing, the huge alliances it makes with what are probably criminal organizations, its programmed cheating of vulnerable Canadians, its treating of ordinary Canadians as if they are garbage.

Never in Canadian history has government/corporate corruption been so total, so unrelieved, so crass, … so planned. [Read, for instance, Lawrence Martin, “If integrity is the issue, the Tories are finished”, Globe and Mail, May 12, A11, Anthony Hall, “Neoconning the public”, Common Ground, May 2015, pp. 12, 13…, Michael Harris, Party of One, Viking, 2014, etc. etc.]

To see the very end-point of Conservative Party malice and greed, think of wounded veterans being cheated of care, thalidomide victims promised assistance, and stalled…, First Nations people (over and over) treated as trash and denied social assistance granted to other Canadians. Those examples illustrate clearly that any expense will be manipulated and denied that doesn’t accrue profit to private corporations (located anywhere in the world).

The Stephen Harper Conservatives in league with The One Per Cent are stripping Canada bare, are looting and pillaging the country before our (mostly closed) eyes.
[Kai Nagata of Dogwood Initiative, May 21, reports that the wholly spurious National Energy Board has told Kinder Morgan it can keep its (spill) Emergency Response plans secret. And he reports in bold face print that Kinder Morgan’s publicly released risk assessments contain a flat out lie.]

The whole Kinder Morgan transmountain pipeline scenario is seen by more and more people as a series of dirty-dealing manipulations … a silent pact among the Conservative cabinet, Kinder Morgan, and the National Energy Board. On every hand people are looking for the Opposition Parties to disown the National Energy Board publicly, to demand its eradication, and to work openly and publicly to destroy it.

Economist Robyn Allen has publicly withdrawn (May 19, 2015) as an expert intervener from the National Energy Board review of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Expansion Project. In doing so she condemns the NEB unreservedly, writing it “violated the rules of procedural fairness and natural justice, and biased its decision-making in favour of Kinder Morgan.”

Where are the Opposition parties?

That is just one example of the Conservative government as instrument of The One Per Cent. Here’s another – that Canadians miss because the truth is almost impossible to take in.

A Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) boss (or bosses) has written to papers assuring Canadians that the CRA doesn’t politically target persons or organizations when engaging in audits. That is probably one of the more flagrant lies coming from the fog called the Party in Power, the Conservative government. Before the present Conservative government was in power does anyone remember what might be called raids on environmental organizations – that just happen to be enemies of the Conservative government? CRA “activity” and inactivity doesn’t stop there … by any means. Take a deep breath ….

The CRA and the Conservative cabinet have to know about the over $200 BILLIONS of Canadian private and corporate money hidden away in Tax Havens around the world. Since at least the publication of Nicholas Shaxson”s Treasure Islands in 2011, no one can claim ignorance about the Tax Havens. And, indeed, the CRA knows about them and – seemingly – wants to ignore their existence. On whose behalf?

Canadians For Tax Fairness (CTF) has been researching and reporting on big-time Canadian tax dodgers – keeping CRA well informed (as if it wasn’t already). As a first step CTF wants CRA to calculate and report on what is called Canada’s ‘tax gap’ – what should be paid and what isn’t. Liberal senator (PEI) Percy Downe has also been pushing CRA to go to work. Establishing the tax gap, apparently, is seen as the first step in doing something about it.

But a not very bright school child might well see what is really going on. The CRA (otherwise known to some as the Conservative cabinet) wants to be rid of the subject altogether.

(1) The Conservative cabinet has slashed CRA operating monies at a time when powerhouse activity on gigantic tax-dodging is required.

(3) At the same time, the Conservative cabinet is steadily increasing the amount of the tax revenue paid by ordinary Canadians.

(4) By sheer coincidence corporate propaganda claims that lowering corporate taxes makes room for corporations to hire more people (but no evidence exists to prove that they have done so or really intend to do so).

So what do we see? We see the government/CRA employing the very real smoke-screen action of attacking, across the board, voluntary, ‘people’s’ organizations as enemies of Conservative policy by slandering them and conducting damaging audits of their work. Behind the smoke-screen action, the gigantic tax-dodging process by the Canadian rich - through Tax Havens dotted around the world - goes forward very well protected and apparently right off the radar of the Canadian Revenue Agency (and many Canadians). And, just incidentally, the loss of taxes to the Government of Canada is being made up by a process of increasing the tax load on the non-rich.

When written as it is here, the failure of Conservative integrity looks far worse than Lawrence Martin suggests. But we Canadians are thick in the head. What I have related here will be described as “conspiracy theory”. The failure, for instance, to care for our wounded veterans will be described as a “glitch” in operations, a crazy oversight, not a completely consistent part of the attack on Canada and vulnerable Canadians by the cabinet of the Stephen Harper Conservative government.

All that is lamentable.

More lamentable is the almost total failure of the Opposition Parties. With Conservative Party evil-doing and dirty tricks at an historic level – Opposition Parties should be naming, exposing, confronting, challenging openly, demanding accounting – in Parliament, on media, in community halls across the country, on the streets of Canada – and where possible, in the courts … exposing Conservative Party criminal action.

Nothing makes more clear the sclerosis, the opportunism, the calculating compromise of the Opposition Parties than their inaction. Nothing shows more clearly their desire to be buddies of the global corporations - “to take over administration”, rather than to defeat the Conservative government with a radical re-building action plan.

That is why Canada must have a wholly new Party that takes power and reclaims Canada for Canadians. That is the absolutely necessary next step ….

[Merv Ritchie and friends in B.C. are moving in that direction by creating a new party ... that you can join. Is it the right structure? Will it work? Is it the vehicle for the gigantic and absolutely necessary next step?

The
L.A.W. Party is a Political Party founded in British Columbia with the
intention to run Candidates in the Provincial and Federal Elections in
Canada.

The Principle of the L.A.W. Party is to ensure protection of the Land Air and Water.

The
Party has yet to develop a logo for use in the upcoming elections.
Submissions will be respectfully accepted and considered.

The Party official statement is;

“The Preservation and Protection of all Land, Air and Water is the LAW.”

The
Party will work towards developing and supporting replacement products
and technologies for products presently harming the Land, Air and Water.

As
an official party running and participating in legislative assemblies,
all voting will be considered free votes without direction or obligation
to a party leader. The expectation is all issues threatening to the
Land Air and Water will be voted down by party members.

More specifically the purpose of the Party is two fold.

First
to oppose Canada's continued reliance on petroleum products of all
types including the extraction and transportation of these products
where they threaten the L.A.W.

Secondly to
uphold the original peoples treaty and non-treaty rights and Canada's
obligations to the indigenous peoples who have always had a personal
relationship with the L.A.W.
_______________________

The below written by Grant G

Time For Canadian Politicians To Walk the Walk

I wish Merv Ritchie and his team good fortune....And on another note, related to the above article by Robin Mathews..

The NDP federally is polling very well as of late, and that does warm my heart...

The National Post`s Michael Den Tandt has come out swinging against Thomas Mulcair, a lame article, not subtle, a column that reeks, why anyone would want put their name to it is beyond me, so slim, so obvious, so written by the Harper Conservative propaganda department.

And of course our corporate newspapers The Vancouver Sun and Province ran with the Mulcair smear..

I recommend that you read Michael Den Tandt`s article....Not because it`s good journalism, because it`s bad writing...There are so many Stephen Harper government boondoggles, from failing the military on every procurement, running up debt, near $1 billion in taxpayer funded Conservative partisan advertising over the last 5 years..The debt run-up...And a total failure by Harper on the economic front...Alberta oil has been dug, dredged and extracted for decades, oil was at record highs for years, a 6 month oil-price downturn and Alberta`s economy is toast, the federal budget back in deficit too...5 straight Stephen Harper federal deficits, and he had a majority..

What passes as journalism these days, that National Post article is not worthy enough to be published there, let alone worthy enough to be re-posted in our B.C. corporate rags...

It shows how stupid the federal Conservatives think we the people are...A child could see through Michael Dan Tandt`s article, it will drive more people to the federal NDP..

Rachel Notley made specific election promises, ..."To raise corporate taxes, to review royalty rates and adjust" (upward)....Rachel didn`t specify raising royalty rates upward but she certainly wouldn`t lower them, any royalty review would be to raise the rates, that is what Rachel Notley explicitly implied in her election campaign, I agree with that platform..

Ever since Rachel Notley won the Alberta election the corporate world has come out squealing like pigs, claiming the sky will fall, threatening to take their ball and go somewhere else..

I urged Premier Rachel Notley in my article to proceed forward with her election promises, for that is why the people voted her in...10,000 people were on hand for her swearing in ceremony today at the Alberta legislature.....10,000 people..

This is the NDP`s test....This Alberta test run will have profound implications on Thomas Mulcair`s federal election bid...

Let me elaborate, the Alberta PC`s(Stephen Harper`s gang) ran Alberta`s economy like a drunken corporate boardroom, all the money wasted, they collected so little oil revenue that the province of Alberta couldn`t survive with 6 months of low oil price...No provisions, no nest egg, no rainy day fund..NOTHING..

The people of Alberta did not elect an NDP Government to maintain the corporate taxation and royalty rate status quo....

I guarantee that if Rachel Notley follows through with raising corporate taxation the energy majors in Alberta will not leave...Reason?...Tax and royalty rates are higher in the USA, higher in South America, higher in Norway, higher everywhere else in the world..

What Rachel Notley needs to know and hopefully understand....Thomas Mulcair and the federal NDP`s electoral chances depend on her keeping the promises she made to the people of Alberta..

The Canadian public is yearning for a political party to actually keep their election promises..

Enough of talking the talk....Canadians need to see our elected leaders do something new...

(pictured above is Delfin LNG`s floating liquefaction ship)

The Beginning of The end for Behemoth Land-Based LNG Export Plants(Petronas`s Achilles Heel, Finding Profit)

Written by Grant G

Hello people of British Columbia......

The USA can build LNG exports 40% cheaper than anything that can be built in British Columbia, ...Let me explain, before the fraccing shale gas boom the United States was gearing up for large volumes of imported LNG...Regasification plants were built in many locations in the USA...But before anyone could blink the fraccing revolution took place, ..

America doesn`t need imported LNG, so....These LNG regasification plants have been converted to LNG liquefaction plants, thus they are now LNG export plants...Built for 50% less than the cost of starting from scratch...

The below article highlights the next revolution in liquefying natural gas into exportable LNG..

Floating liquefaction plants, mobile, versatile, and cheaper to build,...not only cheaper to build but faster to build, these ships can be built in half the time of an on-land facility, ...And what`s even more important, these floating plants don`t have the big environmental footprint..

The below story is more bad news for Petronas and in particular, really bad news for British Columbia....

Let me clarify, there will be a market for LNG and many big players want in on the action, the key to profitability is market share and the ability to deliver LNG at the lowest cost..

The below article states in clear concise words that the days of the big Asian price differential is over...

Delfin LNG will be in operation by 2019....Delfin LNG clearly states that they can be profitable selling LNG at $7 dollars per BTU...

Petronas can`t compete at that price, the bare-bones minimum price Petronas needs to break even is about $11 to $12 dollars per BTU..

Shell`s prelude, their floating ship/liquefaction LNG plant will be in operation off the Australia coast within the year..

With such fierce competition between the energy majors how long can it be before the other big players...Exxon Mobile..British Gas...Qatar...Chevron follow suit?

British Columbia missed the boat on LNG...The days of massive onshore LNG export plants are going the way of the dinosaur..

The LNG market is saturated, with 20% more supply coming online over the next 18 months and even more supply coming online before 2020..

The current LNG spot market price for LNG in Asia is $7 per BTU....

I personally believe this new floating LNG liquefaction technology will finish off British Columbia`s proposed big land-based operations..

Delfin LNG is not alone...I reported early this year about another LNG export proposal for British Columbia..

Newtimes energy has proposed a floating LNG liquefaction ship for British Columbia...

That story is here..

I don`t expect Christy Clark and the BC Liberals to admit that they and Petronas have a problem, really big problems...

The Skeena river watershed destruction, the loss of our wild salmon in BC`s second most productive river...Newtimes energy is proposing a floating plant for Prince Rupert...

Petronas could do the same thing, build a floating plant....The investment dollars for British Columbia doesn`t change much..Because, Petronas`s $11 billion dollar Lelu island project proposal...$9 billion dollars of the project cost was being built overseas, and Petronas was planning on using 80% temporary foreign workers..

Floating LNG export plants merely require a pipeline to the coast and an onshore compressor..

There may be some of you that are skeptical about this new technology, I remind you of the USA experience..

Near $100 billion dollars worth of regasification plants were built in the USA in anticipation of importing LNG...Those brand new regasification facilities were shuttered before they even received one cargo of LNG..

To the winners goes the spoils....With LNG, the winners will be those operations who can deliver LNG on the cheap and still make a profit..

The days of behemoth land-based LNG plants are going the way of the dinosaur...

Delfin LNG has already applied for export license in the USA, they anticipate that LNG export operations will commence in 2019....That is at least 2 years earlier than the Petronas timeline..

Delfin LNG also has buyers of their gas lined up and ready..

"The facility is expected to start up in 2019 and Deflin has already found a buyer –Litgas, a Lithuanian gas company."

Can`t you envision one of these ships firmly anchored in Kitimat, another in Prince Rupert?

____________________

This LNG Player Could Leave Lumbering Competitors In The Dust

US companies have been scrambling over the past few years to build new
export terminals for liquefied natural gas (LNG). But just as the first
is nearing completion, one company wants to forgo the onshore
liquefaction concept altogether and move offshore.

The US is nearing the point when it will start exporting natural gas, which Bloomberg says will
“change the global LNG market forever.” US LNG could undermine the
practice – particularly in Asia – where supply deals are sealed with
long-term contracts linked to the price of oil. More LNG shipped abroad
will bring down LNG prices in Europe and Asia and create more spot
trading. The US could become a pivotal player in the LNG market (just
don’t tell American consumers, who could face higher domestic natural
gas prices as a result).

But another company hopes to
move beyond Cheniere Energy with a different concept. Delfin LNG is
proposing a set of floating LNG vehicles (FLNGV), which will liquefy
natural gas on board a ship, cutting out the need to build an onshore
export terminal. The company says that will cut construction times by 1 to 2 years, reduce the onshore environmental impact, and most importantly, provide it with flexibility.

Building
LNG export terminals require billions of dollars of upfront investment,
necessitating some sort of certainty that buyers will be around for the
long haul. That is why many companies enter into long-term contracts
for the supplies before they put up the cash to build one.

Delfin argues that its FLNGV
fleet can be used to liquefy and export natural gas for as long as its
customer base sticks around. It can pack up and move somewhere else once
its work is done. Delfin’s proposed vehicle could also theoretically be
moved out of the Gulf of Mexico in the event of a hurricane.

Specifically, Delfin LNG wants to build a compressor station
onshore in Cameron Parish, Louisiana that will become equipped to pipe
gas offshore. There is already a natural gas pipeline that runs from the
Louisiana coast into the Gulf of Mexico – it was previously used to
pipe gas onshore, but the new compressor station will allow Delfin to
ship gas from onshore to offshore. There the gas will be liquefied on
board the four proposed FLNGVs. Delfin submitted an application to the Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration.

The facility is expected to start up in 2019 and Deflin has already found a buyer –Litgas, a Lithuanian gas company.

Floating liquefaction is popping up more and more as the technology improves. Royal Dutch Shell is building one of the biggest and most iconic FLNG projects
in the world. The Prelude, as it is called, is a ship that will drill
for and liquefy natural gas. It will be positioned to drill off the
coast of Australia.

Deflin LNG hopes to capitalize
on cheap US gas with its project. At the same time, Delfin LNG is
entering a market that is getting more and more crowded. Gone are the
days of LNG prices in Asia running five or six times as high as US
natural gas prices.

The spot price for LNG in Asia – using the Platts
JKM marker – fell to $7.12 per million Btu
(MMBtu) for June 2015, less than half of what they were just a few
years ago. US natural gas prices have been hovering around $3/MMBtu.
After liquefaction and transportation costs, there is not much of a
margin left.

A wave of new LNG projects is set to hit the world between now and 2018, with the largest additions ever coming this year and next. Global liquefaction capacity is expected to climb by 20 percent by 2016.

That
could stall out a lot of projects that have not already signed up
long-term customers. Or it could push developers into building floating
LNG vehicles rather than onshore terminals.

NYC-based PIRA Energy Group believes that big decisions will emerge and change the course of LNG supply in 2015.

Terms such as “postponement”, “cancelation”, and “cost cutting” will
feature prominently in the 2015 LNG market. The ability of new LNG
supply to move forward on the back of higher oil prices appears to be
taking an extended holiday. The upstream and downstream implications
will be wide ranging. On the upstream side, PIRA sees a world where
announced LNG projects will begin to make official statements that
moving ahead will no longer be economical.

Last week’s weekly storage update from the EIA revealed a further
contraction in withdrawals — on top of last week’s below-expectation
pull. The 26 BCF(billion cubic feet of gas) draw, however, again widely missed the consensus
expectations centered in the mid-30 BCF(billion cubic feet) area, notwithstanding some polls
pointing to a W/W(world wide) decline a bit north of 40 BCF.(billion cubic feet)

The lack of persistent colder-than-normal weather is finally paving
the way for lower day-ahead and forward prices. The weak supply/demand
gas fundamentals PIRA has been discussing for some time, are playing an
increasingly central role in price formation. A cold winter forecast by
several weather forecast suppliers still makes us somewhat nervous about
the longstanding downward trajectory of PIRA’s day-ahead forecast, but
the behavior of the forward curve over the past 30 days has been solidly
trending towards PIRA’s view. Forward curve prices have already hit
PIRA targets to the downside for the first quarter and are moving into
close range for the second and third quarters.

Imagine pipelines zigzagging our northeast, roads and drill pads everywhere, ten`s of thousands of drillpads and connecting pipes, all that wasted/spoiled water, caribou, wolves and all the other species will literally become extinct, you can`t remove the animals migratory paths and expect them to survive...and for almost no money..

It`s also my belief that this technology will put to rest all the LNG bluster and hype from the BC Liberals, we won`t get 3 LNG plants, or 5..or 19....With luck we don`t get any, time for British Columbia to become a 21st century modern land, not just raw resource exporters, wasters of water and wildlife killers ...British Columbia`s greatest asset is sustainable forestry and super natural pristine land full of birds and unique species, along with clean water laden with wild salmon and ocean delicacies...

That is what will have real value in the decades, and hopefully centuries to come...

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

British Columbia under a BC Liberal Government has officially become a third world banana republic..

Before we get started disecting this latest white noise announcement on LNG and Petronas we need to examine the not too distant past..

Gordon Campbell in 2001 campaigned, Campbell promised in his electioneering that BC would not sell BC Rail and that a BC Liberal Government would honour signed, negotiated contracts with the public sector..

We know what happened, ...The BC Liberals sold BC Rail and ripped up contracts with BC`s teachers and the HEU, ....The HEU years later won a supreme court ruling against those BC Liberals, the teachers are on the same path...

What does this have to do with LNG?..Simple..

Gordon Campbell and Christy Clark make the assertions that Governments of the day can`t tie the hands of future Governments...Oh my, ..is that so, I guess in the Christy Clark fantasy world those rules only apply to worker`s wages, not corporate taxation and royaltyrates

For today Christy Clark and her government henchmen signed a memorandum of understanding that says no future government can raise LNG royalty rates or LNG tax rates...

"Should Alberta’s Orange Crush ever splash over the border and an NDP
government think about raising LNG or carbon taxes, the government of
the day would be obliged to compensate Petronas, thanks to a project
development agreement announced May 20.

Premier Christy Clark also announced a long-term royalty agreement
that sets the royalty rate that Petronas will pay B.C. – an agreement
that Clark said will guard against price volatility.

The agreements must be ratified in the Legislature and only take effect if Petronas makes a final investment decision.

In total, the company expects to invest $36 billion on the Pacific
NorthWest LNG project, pipeline and upstream natural gas assets.“These agreements set the stage for a potential $36 billion
investment in Northern B.C. that will be a key driver of jobs and really
set the stage for a new era of economic activity and a new industry for
B.C.,” Clark said.

Under the agreement, the B.C. government agrees to compensate
Petronas, should future governments move the goalposts on things like
LNG taxes and credits. For example, if the B.C. government were to
increase its LNG tax rate, or introduce some new income or capital tax,
Petronas would have the right to be compensated.It would also be compensated if the province increases an
LNG-specific carbon tax. Petronas would also be elgible for compensation
if the priovince decreases the natural gas tax credit.The agreement also ensures that, should more beneficial agreements be
signed in the future with other proponents, companies like Petronas
will be able to qualify for the more beneficial agreement.

In a technical briefing prior to a press conference with the Premier,
government officials said LNG proponents have been asking for project
development agreements as a way to increase "certainty" around projects.
Examples of they types of uncertainties proponents are trying to avoid
could include additional levies or an industry-specific carbon tax,
applied after an investment decision has already been made.

Project development agreements have been signed for projects in
Australia as well as in less-developed countries. They have not been
used in the United States.

The agreement, which must still be ratified by the Legislative
Assembly, takes effect once Petronas makes a final investment decision.

Under the new royalty agreements, a minimum payment would have to be
paid when production levels drop but will be paid at rates based on
production when production is higher.Clark said the royalty structure smooths out the payments to the province and protects against price volatility.

“We wanted to make sure… to protect taxpayers, that we insulated
ourselves against volatility in natural gas prices,” Clark said. “So it
means that we will get a predictable amount every year into the
provincial budget, and when prices are down, it means that we get more
than we otherwise would and, when prices are up, sometimes a little bit
less, but it’s the same amount overall.“It’s a smooth rate, if you will, that means we protect ourselves against volatility.”

_______________________

Full Stop!

Before our 2013 election and during the writ period Christy Clark made some very specific campaign promises pertaining to LNG

Christy Clark stated and I quote...

"LNG will eliminate BC`s debt....LNG will create a $100 billion dollar prosperity fund..LNG will pay off all crown debt, ...LNG will pay for new schools and hospitals....LNG could even eliminate BC`s sales tax...LNG will create over 100,000 high paying jobs"..."British Columbia can receive 5 to 6 times the price for natural gas in Asia"....snip.

Everyone of those promises are caput...EVERYONE, gone, like pixie dust blown away in a westcoast gale..

Perhaps the BC Liberals can explain this statement made by the BC Government officials made this day, May 20th/2015...And I quote

___________________

"Government officials say the proposal includes long term royalty agreements that bring revenue minimums to the province and rate stability to Petronas.

The royalty rates, which are pre-set annually, start at just above six percent and rise to a maximum of 13,36 percent, bringing in an estimated $7.7 billion in revenue to the province over the 23 years of the proposed project"

This project, the Petronas project is scheduled to be over and done with in 23 to 25 years...That`s why Petronas was initially chasing a 25 year gas export license, there was never, ever any talk about a 40 year export license...but but but...

How can that be, ...The Prince Rupert Lax Kw’alaams First Nation just voted on a project with a time frame of 40 years, money per year, with the majority of the money promised coming in the years 30 to 40....Yet here we are being told the Petronas project is for 23 years...Who is lying, what is it, 23 years, 25 years or 40 years, ?...

Who is lying Petronas, BC Liberal Government?...Answer, both!

Now we know why the Lax Kw’alaams First Nations were offered this deal, now we know why Lax Kw’alaams was pressured by the BC Government to vote on the deal a mere week after the offer, Petronas and the BC Government didn`t want Lax Kw’alaams First Nations to discover the fact that PNG LNG won`t be in operation beyond 25 years..

Petronas wouldn`t be here in years beyond 25...That`s why Petronas offered Prince Rupert Lax Kw’alaams First Nations the bulk of the money in the years 30 through 40...Who is zooming who?If this project is only for 23 years or 25 years why was the export license timeframe quietly changed from 25 to 40 years...?As written here, export licenses were changed so Petronas could offer monies so far out in the future the project would already be shuttered.

________________

Game changer': Gas company offers $1-billion to First Nations band in B.C.

The $1 billion dollars is over 40 years, the payout, the yearly payout
starts at $12 million per year, set to rise to $50 million in the 40th year....???

There are 3600 current members of this particular First Nation
band....That works out to less than $4K per member per year, are we to
believe Petronas will honour the terms of the deal in 25 years
hence?...

What am I talking about, $700 million dollars of Petronas`s financial offer to First Nations doesn`t arrive until AFTER YEAR 25...!!!

70% of the money promised to First Nations is after year 25...50% of the money in years 30 to 40...

Now we know why Petronas offered the money so far out.! PNW LNG isn`t scheduled to be operation at that Lelu island location after 25 years..

Someone has some major explaining to do...Why did Stephen Harper bury the export license changes in his omnibus budget bill..?Why was it changed?

Petronas and the Christy Clark Government are saying(today, May 20th/2015) the life of the Petronas project is 23 years long..not 40 years but a mere 23 years..????
____________

Ottawa extends LNG export licenses to 40 years

"The federal government is extending the lifespan of liquefied natural
gas export licenses, the latest rollback in its quest to convince one
of nearly 20 LNG proponents to put down roots in B.C. The 2015 budget extends LNG export licenses from a maximum of 25 years to 40.The government hopes extending the life of a licenses will "improve
regulatory certainty" for companies considering LNG plants on B.C.'s
west coast."

This announcement, this change from 25 years to 40 years happened in
federal budget 2015...This allowed Petronas to change the promised First
Nation payoff scheme from 25 years to 40 years...

Meaning monies promised after 25 years from now is by no means a
certainty, it is in fact doubtful, look how quickly companies laid off
workers in the tar sands, look how quickly big energy companies cried
poverty...

Christy Clark....Can you explain why First Nations were offered yearly money from Petronas with the bulk of the money arriving beyond year 30 ?

With the largest yearly amount arriving in the 40th year....Please explain when you now say the Petronas project is to last a mere 23 years?

Even Vaughn Palmer mentions how the BC Liberals are locking in tax and royalty "for the life of the project"

Riddle me this...... Again, 23 years of certainty for Petronas, 23 years of certainty for the LIFE OF THE PETRONAS PROJECT....So, how come Petronas`s offer of money to First Nations was over 40 years? With the bulk of the money offered arriving in the years 30 through 40 with the largest payout $50 million coming in year 40?

Now we have taxation rates sliced downward by 80%.....Royalty rates reduced to almost nothing, LNG companies won`t pay a red cent until they recoup their build costs! Export license quietly changed from 25 years to 40 years in Stephen Harper`s latest omnibus budget bill..

Job numbers are a lie...Revenue forecasts are a lie...Project life timeframe is a lie

Petronas`s Prince Rupert proposal....

A cost, an estimated cost of $11.4 billion dollars, of which Petronas has confirmed that near $9 billion dollars of that BC investment investment will be spent in another country, specifically South Korea, mainframes and modules will all be manufactured in South Korea and barged to British Columbia....

Petronas will have the ability to recoup those $billions of dollars spent in a foreign country from BC taxpayers too

From the mouth of Petronas, not me, not media spinners, from the horse`s mouth(not Christy Clark, Petronas)

________________

Petronas wants engineering work for B.C. LNG venture to be shifted offshore

Petronas
plans to push contractors to shift more engineering work for a proposed
B.C. liquefied natural gas venture to lower-cost centres offshore as the
Malaysian energy giant squeezes suppliers.

Of
the total $11.4-billion in estimated construction costs for the
Petronas-led Pacific NorthWest LNG export terminal at Lelu Island, there
would be $8-billion worth of imported goods and services spread over a
five-year period.

It is in that international component where Petronas
hopes to find the bulk of cost savings, but the state-owned company will
cast a wide net abroad and in Canada, including having TransCanada Corp. re-examine ways to make its proposed $5-billion natural gas pipeline project more efficient.

Christy Clark and big media also keep splashing around the number $36 billion dollars, that is for spin purposes, Petronas has not committed to spend $36 billion in BC...Petronas`s commitment to BC spending is a mere $2 billion dollars.....

Yes there would be temporary construction, but once built(assembled)...PETRONAS LNG PLANT WOULD EMPLOY A MERE 150 PEOPLE.

When will the BC Liberals stop spinning the numbers like a roulette wheel...

Here is a newsflash Christy Clark....You have no idea what energy prices will be in the future, Petronas may be flat broke in 20 years or they may be rolling in cash hand over fist and no Government can tie a future Government`s hands when it comes to taxation or royalty rates, any Government that even proposes such a scheme is bordering on totalitarian rule ...When will the BC Liberals enact other legislation, when will new rules be enacted that only corporate owned political parties can hold office, when will more draconian rules be adopted, ..Slippery slopes are indeed slippery..

We have learned since the election that Christy Clark`s LNG revenue forecasts were mere fantasy..

We have learned since the election that the BC Liberal LNG job projections were an orchestrated lie..

Emails between top-level BC civil servants show Premier
Clark’s 100,000 LNG jobs were based on dubious assumptions thrown
together at the last minute for her 2013 throne speech. Were those civil
servants working for the public interest or Clark’s election campaign?

The BC Prosperity Fund got barely a mention in last month’s Speech
from the Throne. But a year ago Premier Clark’s apparently far-sighted
plan to develop a massive LNG industry that would create “100,000 jobs
for BC families” and pump billions into Provincial coffers fuelled the
launch of the Liberals’ election campaign. Their compelling
clean-energy-and-jobs message brought them from 20 points behind to a
surprising victory in last May’s election.

Now, though, Clark’s government appears to be stepping back from all
that. The legislation to introduce a new LNG-supportive tax regime has
been postponed a second time, for no apparent reason. Although Finance
Minister Mike de Jong outlined the tax regime in his February budget
speech, his plan to introduce it is vague.

Were the Prosperity Fund and the job claims part of an elaborate
election ploy? It wouldn’t be the first time a government made an
election promise it didn’t intend to keep. A more troubling possibility,
though, is that Provincial public service employees and public funds
were used to create that election ploy, contrary to the BC Standards of
Conduct that govern what civil servants can do while on the job.
Documents recently obtained by Focus through an FOI, and our independent
analysis of a consultant’s report done for the Ministry of Energy,
Mines and Natural Gas days before Premier Clark announced the Prosperity
Fund in February 2013, suggest that might be the case.The documents (download from link at end of story) suggest that an
initiative to produce reports from independent consultants who would
validate the potential for large revenues and massive job creation from
LNG projects was launched only a month before Premier Clark announced
the Prosperity Fund. The initiative appears to have been overseen by
Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance Doug Foster. Foster outsourced the
work to three private firms and delivered the numbers for Clark’s speech
only days before it was made. Foster appears to have been reporting to
Neil Sweeney, Deputy Minister, Corporate Policy in the Premier’s Office.The report that provided the numbers was authored by Grant Thornton
LLP (download from link at end of story), a prestigious accountancy firm
with world-wide operations. Grant Thornton’s report allowed the Premier
to say in her February 2013 throne speech, “LNG development is poised
to trigger approximately $1 trillion in cumulative GDP within British
Columbia over the next 30 years and that means more than $100 billion
will flow directly to the Prosperity Fund. Province wide, LNG is
expected to create on average 39,000 annual direct, indirect and induced
full-time jobs during a nine-year construction period. As well, there
could be as many as 75,000 full-time jobs required once all LNG plants
are in full operation.”

Was the report credible?

Before I tell you exactly what was in those emails, let me tell you
why we were looking for them and how they came into our possession. Back
in February 2013, all we knew was what the Premier said in her speech.
For many of us it was the first time we had heard “LNG.” After Clark’s
government had delivered its election budget, it released two
reports—one authored by Grant Thornton and the other by Ernst &
Young—that purported to validate the LNG revenue projections
underpinning Clark’s Prosperity Fund. Oddly enough, those reports didn’t
contain any job creation numbers.Throughout the subsequent election campaign, Clark had repeatedly
stressed her plan would create “100,000 jobs for BC families.” But where
did those jobs come from?After the election, inquiries to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and
Natural Gas about the LNG job figures used by Clark revealed that a
third report, also by Grant Thornton, had provided the mathematical
substance for the previously released studies of potential LNG revenues.
But this report had been secreted away. There wasn’t a single reference
to it in BC media coverage of the election. The Ministry sent us a link
to its hiding place.After we read the report, which had the deceptively simple title
Employment Impact Review, Focus filed an FOI for the record of
communications between the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas and
Grant Thornton as they developed the study. The report contained many
warnings to the reader that it was based entirely on assumptions
provided by “the Province and its advisors.” We wondered who those
“advisors” were and whether the Province and its advisors had pushed the
process toward some desired outcome.There was good reason to believe they had. Grant Thornton had arrived
at questionable conclusions in its report. For example, it had checked
the validity of a key assumption provided to them by the Province and
its advisors by comparing it with the Australia Pacific LNG project,
which was being built in Queensland. Grant Thornton concluded the
assumption was supported by the Australian numbers. There were,
however, problems with how they applied the Australian comparison.In its commentary about the comparison, Grant Thornton noted the
ratio of direct jobs to tonnes of product for BC was only “slightly
higher” than the Australian case. “Overall,” they concluded, “the
estimates are comparable.”Actually, the BC ratio is 36 percent higher than the Australian
number. If BC’s significantly higher number had been adjusted to
actually be “comparable,” 36 percent of the direct jobs in the
assumption would have vanished.Another of those key assumptions was that a capital expenditure of
$98 billion in BC would create the capacity to produce 82 megatonnes of
LNG per year. That, too, seems to be unreasonable.Australia Pacific is a two-phase, $35 billion project expected to
eventually produce 16 megatonnes annually. At that ratio of capacity per
dollar of investment, the Province’s assumed $98 billion would only
create capacity for 45 megatonnes per year. Yet Grant Thornton had
accepted that $98 billion would build 82 megatonnes of capacity.Australia Pacific’s likely costs, by the way, are significantly lower
than BC’s would be: Australia Pacific is building a substantially
shorter pipeline and will sip on coal seam gas, not shale gas. Coal seam
gas doesn’t require drilling horizontal wells and fracking, so the
wells for Australia Pacific LNG are about one-third the cost of wells in
northeast BC.Grant Thornton’s estimation of long-term employment is also puzzling.
According to an extensive study by KPMG of the $35 billion Australia
Pacific project, ongoing operations of the LNG plant would employ 325,
the pipeline 20 and the gas fields 520. Extrapolating from that example,
a $98 billion project in BC would create 910 long-term operational jobs
at LNG plants, 56 pipeline jobs, and 1456 gas field extraction jobs.
That’s direct, long-term employment.If the pertinent BC Stats Input/Output Model multipliers are applied
to these long-term employment figures, the total number of long-term
jobs—direct, indirect and induced—rises to 21,000.It’s difficult to see how Grant Thornton arrived at the conclusion
$98 billion would bring 75,000 long-term full-time jobs to the province.It seemed possible, then, after analyzing the Grant Thornton study
last May, that the process of creating the report might have been pushed
to create a 100,000-jobs election platform rather than function as a
careful and reasoned analysis of the potential for LNG to produce jobs
in BC. If it was the former, had taxpayers paid for a Liberal campaign
expense? If it was the latter, why had the jobs report been kept in a
drawer during the election?

FOI adventures

We filed that FOI for communications between Ministry employees and
Grant Thornton in May of 2013. But the FOI was assessed a very high fee
by the Province, which Focus declined to pay. Our efforts to ask for
fewer records were thwarted by a Ministry information gatekeeper who
said he would help but didn’t.So we FOIed instead for records that should have been slam-dunk easy
for the Ministry to find: the “Documents and information relied upon”
listed in the Grant Thornton report. Most of the entries on that list
had been provided, Grant Thornton said, by “the Province and its
advisors.” It defined “Province” as “the Ministry of Energy, Mines and
Natural Gas.”We were again rebuffed by the Ministry’s information gatekeeper, who,
this time, refused to respond to our request. To make a long story
short, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered
the gatekeeper—under threat of a $13,000 fine—to release the record.The package we received in early February 2014 was surprising: It
contained none of the “documents and information relied upon” by Grant
Thornton. We protested. Then, through the mediation of OIPC, the
Ministry revealed it had no such information in its custody and control.
How could the Ministry not have the information Grant Thornton claimed
the Ministry provided?What the Ministry seemed to have provided, however, were the
communications we originally requested last May: emails between
high-level employees of the Province, their “advisors,” and employees of
Grant Thornton. Fifteen pages of the records were fully severed on the
claim of “cabinet confidences.” The emails were copied from the files of
Brian Hansen when he was Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and
Natural Gas. (Hansen is now Assistant Deputy Minister and Lead
Negotiator, LNG Task Force, Ministry of Natural Gas Development).Hansen’s email record explains why his Ministry didn’t have the
information Grant Thornton said the Ministry had provided: The
information had come entirely from outside of government.

Cooking with gas

Hansen’s emails show that Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance Doug
Foster first contacted Grant Thornton and Ernst & Young on or about
January 11, 2013 to enlist their professional services in developing
reports that would project revenues that might flow to the Province from
an LNG industry in BC. About a week later, Foster realized employment
projections would also be needed.So on Sunday, January 20, Foster emailed Patti Daum of Grant
Thornton’s Vancouver office. Grant Thornton describe themselves as “a
leading Canadian accounting and business advisory firm, providing audit,
tax and advisory services to private and public organizations.”Foster asked Daum, “Is it possible that GT may be able to answer the
following?” Foster wanted to know how many direct and indirect jobs
might be created by “five to seven LNG plants/pipeline projects into the
future.”Fifteen minutes later, Foster fired off another email, this time to
André Powell, a partner in The Deetken Group, a business consultancy
firm in Vancouver. Deetken describe themselves as providing “services to
a broad range of private sector, venture capital and public sector
organizations,” including “energy infrastructure and markets.” Foster’s
email to Powell said, “You have been copied on my communiques to EY
[Ernst & Young] and GT... Can you begin preparing presentations that
combine the work of Deetken and those of EY and GT? [I] think (in fact
know) we will need these this week. Also, we will need to incorporate
employment forecast to the extent that we can get these from third
parties too. Can you let me know your thoughts?”Later that day, Powell emailed Foster: “...with respect to
employment, we have estimates of direct labour (mostly from proponents)
and have developed estimates of indirect and induced [jobs] using
[input/output] multipliers. This analysis might be a good start and
accelerator for EY and/or GT’s work. Happy to package this for them.”On January 23, following conference calls (referred to in the emails)
involving Foster, Powell and Grant Thornton employees, Doug Bastin, a
partner in Grant Thornton’s Vancouver office, emailed Powell an
eight-point list of information he wanted, which included LNG plant
sizes and capacities, production volume estimates, development costs,
project timing, and direct, indirect and induced employment estimates.
Note that Bastin asked Deetken for this fundamental information; he
didn’t ask Foster or Hansen. But Bastin did copy his request to both
Hansen and Foster.Later that day Powell emailed Bastin: “We are currently pulling this data together and will get it to you by end of today.”On January 26 Powell emailed Hansen with an update, noting: “With
respect to employment, we had a call yesterday and we have provided
additional details; also BC Stats are helping them; GT said they will
shoot for Friday [February 1] next week for results.”Late on February 4, Powell, after considering Grant Thornton’s draft
report, emailed Doug Foster four suggestions, copied to Hansen. Powell’s
suggestions included: “We should remove all reference to ‘proponent’
information, this should be described as data provided by the Province
and its advisors developed from industry benchmarks and other sources.”
Powell added that removing all reference to proponent “should also apply
to E&Y’s final report.”If any of Foster, Hansen or Bastin raised any objections to this
apparent switch in the attribution of the source of some of the
information Grant Thornton was using, it does not appear in the records
Hansen provided. In the final report, as mentioned above, Grant Thornton
credited assumptions and information to “the Province and its
advisors.”Late on February 4, just 8 days before Premier Clark announced the
Prosperity Fund, Hansen emailed Powell: “On the jobs and revenue and the
GT and E&Y work, are we close to being [ready] to advance some
validated metrics? I ask as there is a meeting tomorrow with folks from
the centre around these metrics and I assume Doug [believed to be a
reference to GT’s Doug Bastin] is close to finished.”Early the next day Powell replied to Hansen: “The GT labour market
work is almost ready, we are on a call with them this morning to make
some changes/updates to their work. EY is not intending to provide
labour market forecasts. For your meeting this [morning], I would go
with the GT numbers as provisional/work in progress.” Powell then listed
numbers which are virtually identical to estimated LNG employment
figures presented in Clark’s Speech from the Throne on February 12, and
in the 2013-2014 BC Budget.Early on February 6, with less than a week before Clark would
announce the Prosperity Fund, Deputy Minister to the Premier Neil
Sweeney emailed Foster and Hansen and asked: “Guys, can we get the
actual drafts from GT and the other folks?” Foster emailed back: “Neil, the drafts are in various stages and
continue to evolve due to:” and then Foster listed three issues that
were causing delays, including: “Reviews by them [presumably “them”
refers to GT and E&Y] to ensure that details are removed to protect
proponent information sources...”

Who provided what to whom?

Focus emailed Deetken’s André Powell, Grant Thornton’s Doug Bastin,
and the Province’s Doug Foster questions about how the Grant Thornton
reports were developed. Neither Bastin or Foster responded to emails.I asked Powell why he had suggested removing any reference to
“proponent” information from the final reports and instead suggested
attributing all information to “the Province and its advisers developed
from industry benchmarks and other sources”.Powell said, “[T]he proponents did not provide information to GT and
EY. To state otherwise in the final report would have been inaccurate
and I therefore provided a corrected description for inclusion in the
final document.”Powell added,“In providing information and assumptions to the
consultants (GT and EY), Deetken considered a variety of sources. This
included aggregated information from proponents, industry benchmarks and
other research and analytics.”Powell explained that “Deetken used aggregated information collected
on the Province’s behalf to assist it in evaluating other information it
had already compiled as to reasonableness before passing specific
assumptions to the consultants. The consultants [Grant Thornton and
Ernst & Young] themselves were also free to accept or adjust such
received information based on their own analysis and research of
industry information.”Powell confirmed that “Deetken was not under contract with any LNG
proponents or developers at the time the report was developed.”With the “Province” claiming it had none of the information Grant
Thornton said it had, Deetken seems to be the sole source of information
used by Grant Thornton, aside from their consideration of the Australia
Pacific project. Deetken’s information, then, provided the fundamental
basis for Clark’s Prosperity Fund and her successful election campaign. Powell’s explanation of why he wanted aggregated information from
proponents to be given a more opaque attribution is that no specific
information from individual proponents was included. Fair enough. But
how could the public interest be served in this taxpayer-funded exercise
without transparency and accountability? Asking Encana, for example,
for objective information about how many drilling jobs an LNG industry
would create is like asking Goldman Sachs whether reducing regulation of
investment banking would be good for the economy.By disguising the source of the information, the exercise became political.And, as mentioned earlier, the numbers seem to have been manipulated, or fudged as British Columbians prefer to put it. Grant Thornton, Deetken and Foster seem to have created, intentionally or not, a “fudge-it budget” for LNG.For whose benefit were such arithmetical indiscretions performed? Well it wasn’t for Adrian Dix’s sake.

Is fudging the numbers political activity?

You might recall the scandal the Liberals were embroiled in just
before the last election involving public service employees doing
partisan work on the job. The Deputy Minister to the Premier John Dyble
wrote a report about that affair in which he said the public service
oath “expressly includes the Standards of Conduct, and requires public
servants to conduct themselves in a manner that maintains and enhances
the public’s trust and confidence in the public service.”The BC Standards of Conduct state, “Employees must not engage in
political activities during working hours or use government facilities,
equipment, or resources in support of these activities.”If a public service employee oversees development of a study, and if
that study misrepresents the facts about the employment potential
arising from LNG development in the province, and that misrepresentation
then becomes the political position of the governing party seven days
later—and the key component of their election campaign—was that employee
engaging in political activity during working hours? Did he conduct
himself in a way “that maintains and enhances the public’s trust and
confidence in the public service”?This is a question that Premier Clark needs to answer, or democracy will continue to wither in BC.

______________

Don`t you see, the BC Liberals orchestrated a fake jobs report, a bogus manufactured spin job designed to trick the people of British Columbia....With that kind of deliberate trickery displayed by the BC Liberals on the LNG file it comes as no surprise that this same government would deliberately engage in conning, tricking the Lax Kw’alaamsFirst Nation...The narrative of spin, bluster and lies continue...

So, we now know the job numbers were a lie....We now know the revenue projections were lie...We now know the First Nation compensation offer from Petronas was a lie too...

And now Christy Clark is governing like a corporation, a non-democratic corporation...Christy Clark is attempting to tie future Government`s hands for decades to come by legislating permanent tax rates and royalty rates, something never heard of in advanced democracies..A third world banana republic special...

Christy Clark...

You were not given a mandate from the public to tie future Government`s hands, ..Your own government record has made the claim in various courts, making the claim that governments, even outgoing governments can`t tie future government`s hands with long term contracts..

Now you attempt to change stripes mid-stream, you are attempting to enshrine in law draconian legislation that prevents any future Government from altering taxation and royalty rates...

You have no mandate from the electorate to tie future Government`s hands when it comes to taxation and or revenue streams..

You Christy Clark and your BC Liberal team are so desperate to get shovels in the ground before the next election you are preparing to remove democracy from the halls of our legislature and give away resources for a song..

People of British Columbia....

Christy Clark has learned absolutely nothing from the Alberta experience, Norway has a $trillion dollar fund from oil royalties and Alberta is broke, Christy Clark is too corporate corrupted to see the folly of her ways...Christy Clark not only wants to repeat Alberta`s mistake she is intent on magnifying it...

Our media, they are just as corporate corrupted as the BC Liberals...Spinning, using the erroneous number $36 billion for affect and not one mention about democracy, eer, I mean lack of democracy..Not one mention by the media about the implications of a government removing a future government`s role ...Not one word about tying one`s hands for decades to come..

Christy Clark and the BC Liberals, along with Petronas deliberately tried to trick Lax Kw'alaams First Nation into signing a bogus deal, oh indeed, promises of money going out 40 years when PNW LNG only has a 25 year lifespan....

You Christy Clark need to campaign on removing democracy in the next election(2017), you have no mandate to set revenue streams, taxation and royalty rates for decades to come ....until then..Get stuffed.